Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Prop 8 is voted down and at least one celebrity wacks out!

http://cliftonofhesperia.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/why-you-should-vote-for-prop-8/

Want a number of good reasons why gay marriage, which seems rather innocuous, was voted down? See the above.

Again, do we, the people, want 5 - 10% of the population forcing their rules on us? There are civil unions. They don't have to be married. Funny, if they had the right to be called "married," they probably wouldn't want it. But, because the last bastion of tradition is marriage, they've got to fight it tooth and nail! So they can sue when someone doesn't want to serve them. How ridiculous.

On the amusing side, Roseanne Barr, known for her genteel and ladylike style, blasted blacks and anyone who is Christian, right wing, and goes to church:

from http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/11/70_of_black_californians.php

"70% of black church going californians
who voted this cycle voted for prop 8. As they overwhelmingly supported America's first chance to elect a person of color and strike a death blow to racism, they also went out of their way to misuse their votes (no doubt at the behest of their immoral and hateful pastors and clergy) to isolate and punish a small minority of citizens, and to deny them basic civil rights. They voted to deny over 70,000 californian children coverage of the insurance benefits of their gay parents. They voted to destroy the constitution that Obama will hopefully uphold against their wishes, by making sure that church and state remain separated. They voted to "uphold the sanctity of marriage" by making a mockery of it. They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney. When i suggested a couple of years ago that gay organizations should build official bridges with african american organizations, in order to build political consensus and not just represent a purely gay agenda, this very vote is what I was trying to speak to.The gay community needs to do outreach to the black and latino christian and immigrant communities.
the more things change, the more they stay the same.REPENT all ye bible blabbers!!!! babble on babylon" End quote!

Nice girl...

The Fairness Doctrine - Come One, Come All!

Contrary to the conservatives' fear over the Fairness Doctrine, which we have been led to believe will stop conservative Talk Radio and Fox television, I think it will have the opposite effect. In fact, the liberal media may be slapped in the face by the Fairness Doctrine. We should be embracing it!

Just today, Newsmax had an article that President-elect Obama has designated former FCC commissioner Henry Rivera to head his team that will select the next FCC chairman. The original Fairness Doctrine was not mandated by Congress but was an FCC regulation. So, Congress may not decide whether this will be re-instituted, the new FCC chairman may. And, if the FCC chairman decides not to, Congress may decide to make the Fairness Doctrine a law. But, will they be shooting themselves in the foot?

While waiting in line to vote, Sen. Schumer endorsed the Fairness Doctrine with a grin. In other words, he was feeding on fear and basically mocking the people that preach the Fairness Doctrine will cause suppression of free speech.

Let's see - in America, the door swings back and forth, not just one way. We all know that the main steam media gave unfair coverage to the Democrats and mocked and derided the Republicans, even with rumors and outright lies! How much of the Main Stream Media's news is simply opinion and not fact? A lot!

So, here's my view. If the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, each side will have equal time to present contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Why are opposing views a threat? They are unequivocally not a threat! Because, if we believe that our views are right, then we have nothing to fear. We will be able to put our views out on the MSM every time they have an opinion, or lie, or mock, or spread rumors!

The liberal MSM will have to give equal time to the conservatives. NBC and MSNBC will have to give conservatives a chance to challenge the views of Olbermann and Matthews. Presidential elects will have to be given equal time. News versus "opinion" news will be able to be challenged every step of the way.

We all know the news tips greatly to the left. The Fairness Doctrine will "balance" news and opinions if only the conservatives and Republicans demand equal time! In other words, we will have to get our act together and start monitoring the liberal media and demand a response for each slam they give us. We can inundate the MSM with our opposing view!

Now, how will this affect Fox? Not at all. They have fair and balanced news. O'Reilly is fair and balanced. Hannity has Colmes. Van Sustern is fair and balanced. No worries.

What about Rush and Glenn? Well, it will be up to Rush and Glenn to allow the public to give their viewpoint. Or, the radio station to provide the opposing view. What's so bad about that? In fact, I would like to hear an intelligent, factual view behind the liberal position.

And, I'll be happy to turn on MSNBC to hear the views of the conservatives who will be making Olbermann look like a blithering idiot, which will bother the heck out of the opposition!

Viva la Fairness Doctrine!

Friday, November 7, 2008

Congratulations to President Elect Obama (Cough, Cough)

So, were you as suprised as me that Sen. Obama was elected President? I guess I was in some sort of denial. I truly believed that the controversy surrounding him would lead to his undoing, that the American people would see through the lies he told us, the denials, and would elect McCain by default.

Well, I was wrong. Flat out wrong. Stupidly wrong.

I try to make sense of it in my mind, but it doesn't make sense, and so I have to chalk his win up to emotion. And, why should I be surprised, really? Don't quite a few Americans vote with emotion and little knowledge? Yup!

So, we shall see what happens. Right now people are proclaiming him the middle of the roader. Hah.

Will his true spots show soon? I hope not. I hope the Dems in his administration will move him to the middle. If not, we're in for one heck of a ride.

Still, his brand, spanking new chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, has not been without controversy. He once mailed a dead fish to a former co-worker! I can't wait to see what happens when Nancy Pelosi gets on his bad side!

And, according to Wikipedia, in 1996, after Clinton's run for office: "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name." His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo."

Whew! And they said McCain had a temper! Well, people who worked with Emanuel "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out."

If anything, it won't be a dull four years!

San Francisco Wackos At It Again

One of the most stunning sights in San Franciso is the Golden Gate Bridge spanning the San Fran Bay. It can also be a sad symbol of desperation as each year people decide to end their torture by jumping into the murky depths. It is estimated that since the bridge opened sixty years ago, over 1,200 suicides have occurred there.

Just recently a documentary came out showing people climbing over the edge and jumping. It was a disturbing and anguished testimony to it's sad history.

Now, San Franciso has decided to do something about the suicides. It will be erecting a mesh barrier spanning the length of the bridge at an estimated cost of $40 - $50 million.

Now, I realize that suicide is something we all feel we should do everything we can to stop. However, if a person wants to commit suicide, they will, with whatever means they can.

Actually, if I had to go, I would think the bridge was a good way to go. Clean, relatively easy, no evidence. I know I'm close to the edge to say that, that it's something most people would never talk about, but I'm being truthful. I've never felt suicidal and I pray I never do. But, imagine the desperation, the utter hopelessness, in a person who is willing to commit suicide. How sad. How terrible.

Still, I wonder, is it worth $45 + million dollars to erect a barrier for these people? For the next sixty years, if the same number of people commit suicide, it will cost $375,000 per person who didn't commit suicide on the bridge. It won't guarantee that they will try it somewhere else or by some other means. And, that's assuming the same number will commit suicide, and that the mesh barrier will remain in place, with no maintenance, repair, or replacement, for the next sixty years.

Wouldn't it be better to monitor the bridge and catch the people before they jump? Or, put the $45 million into mental health facilities? Or, erect alarms? Isn't there some other way to prevent this from happening?

Once again, government does not look at all the possibilities. And, they are willing to throw money at a problem at the expense of the taxpayer. In this case, $375,000 for each suicide in the next sixty years.

In my opinion, this needs to be looked at further...

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama Wins

The news that Obama has won the election has left some troubling emotions. First, there was disappointment, then disbelief. How could the American public elect a man with radical ties, a murky past, outrageous statements of belief and no track record of sucess in politics?

Obama has grand plans that will cost the American people trillions.

He will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs.

He will create a Green Jobs Corp. His site says this will engage disadvantaged youth in energy efficiency opportunities.

He will double funding for the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program which helps low-income Americans get to work.

He will raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. Imagine small business people having to go from $6.55 now, to $7.25 in 2009, to $9.50 in 2011.

He will expand sick days to guarantee seven paid sick days per year.

He will expand Nurse-Family Partnership which will provide home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers, estimated at 570,000 first-time mothers yearly.

He will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program.

He will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.

He will put more money into early childhood education, affordable child care, and expand Early Head Start and Head Start.

All of these programs, and there are many more, sound great but at what price? Can we really afford all of these programs directed at low-income people? Can the “rich,” the people making over $150,000 a year, afford the enormous cost these programs will need? Or, will these programs come back to haunt the middle-class?

Is Obama just throwing money at a problem? In the end, will any of these programs make a difference? Will they get people out of a low-income situation? Or, like all the other programs that have come before them, will they simply spend Americans’ money and the people who run the programs will make out like bandits?

I would encourage everyone to sign up for Congress.org. At least we will be able to see which bills are being passed as our money flies out the window.

http://www.congress.org/

Monday, November 3, 2008

Obama Must Provide Birth Certificate by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face. To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.